Key Bank is proposing revisions to their previously-approved site plan on NYS Route 50. The revised site plan reconfigures the driveway connection to the adjacent McDonald’s property while still preserving a future connection to Van Buren Road. The revisions result in less pavement, with a 44% green space allotment vs. 35% on the previously-approved plan.

Erin Aiello and Peter Gillies of Woodward, Connor, Gillies, Seleman Architects, represented Key Bank in this application. E. Aiello explained the changes proposed to the previously approved site plan; the major change being the driveway connection behind the neighboring property per the Town Center Master Plan. The connection will be to the McDonald’s parcel, but not to Van Buren Road. Accommodation for a future connection to Van Buren Road will remain in place. There will also be the removal of three trees and two existing fences, one a wooden fence on the subject property, and one fence on a neighboring property. The sidewalk will now connect directly to the sidewalk to the north.

M. Carr asked if the rear neighbor is okay with the removal of the fence. Ms. Aiello responded yes. The trees are intermingled with the fences and are in poor condition. There is also an old utility pole there; this will basically clean-up this area.

Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 14, 2010

Page 2

M. Carr said overall this is a better site plan and the Commission has no major issues. There has been contact with the neighbor regarding the curb cut and M. Carr asked the applicant to address that situation. Peter Gillies stated the applicant is still discussing the curb-cut compliance with the Department of Transportation. A permit will be required from DOT for the curb-cut. M. Carr asked if the applicant will work this out with the neighbor before submitting to DOT and P. Gillies answered yes.

MOTION

In the matter of the revised application of a previously approved site plan by Key Bank for a branch bank located at 241 Saratoga Road, the Planning and Zoning commission finds that this application will not result in a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby issues a negative declaration.

Motion: M. Storti Seconded: J. Gibney

Vote: Ayes: 6Noes: 0Absent: 0 Abstaining: 1 (S. Marsh)

MOTION CARRIED

M. Carr asked what type of trees will be on the north side of the property and E. Aiello said they will be pear trees.

MOTION

In the matter of the revised site plan review application by Key Bank for a branch bank located at 241 Saratoga Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves revisions to the original site plan application. The Commission’s decision is based upon the following findings:

1. The proposed use does conform to other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, landscaping requirements, building design, off-street parking requirements, building setbacks, fence requirements, sign regulations, storm water management and erosion control requirements, etc.

2. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical vehicular access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, curbing, and traffic controls.

3. The proposed use does exhibit satisfactory pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, including separation of pedestrian traffic from automobile traffic, the placement and usefulness of on-site sidewalks and walkways, the accommodation for pedestrians at adjacent street intersections, and overall pedestrian and bicyclist safety and convenience.

4. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical location, arrangement, and setting of off-street parking and loading areas.

5. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical placement, arrangement, size, and design of buildings, lighting, and signs.

Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 14, 2010

Page 3

6. The proposed use does provide for the adequate type and arrangement of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping elements, as they relate to visual and noise buffering of adjacent sites and the reduction of visual impacts from the street.

7. The proposed use does demonstrate adequate provisions for the collection and/or disposal of storm water, sanitary waste, and garbage.

8. The proposed use will allow for adequate on-site snow plowing and snow storage.

9. The proposed use does demonstrate adequacy and durability of structures, roadways, utilities, and landscaping in areas with moderate to high susceptibility to flooding, ponding, and/or erosion.

Reasons for the revisions are that the revisions will result in less pavement, with a 44% green space allotment vs. 35% on the previously-approved plan.

The Conditions of Approval are the same as those included in the original approval of the site plan for this property, and still apply, specifically:

1. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the applicant fully comply with Town Center Master Plan for signage.

2. The Planning and Zoning Commission issues a waiver for the corporate red color for the awning of thisproject.

3. The Department of Transportation must approve any curb-cuts before any work is done at the site.

Motion: M. Storti Seconded: T. Bodden

Vote: Ayes: 6Noes: 0Absent: 0 Abstention: 1 (S. Marsh)

MOTION CARRIED

3. Naeem Mehmood / Tel Oil Revision to the Previously-

2901 Amsterdam Road Approved Site Plan

The applicant is seeking approval for revisions to the previously-approved Tel Oil project on NYS Route 5. The revised plans include relocation of the above-ground kerosene tank and pump, relocation of the diesel pumps to the main pump island, reconfigured parking arrangement, increase in the size of the mini-mart from 1,871 sq. ft. to 2,240 sq. ft. and increase in the amount of green space.

Joe Bianchine of ABD Engineering represented the applicants. He addressed proposed changes to the previously approved site plan. The size of the building would change, it would be farther west on the site, and the diesel pump area is eliminated and moved to the front pump island. The kerosene fueling tank would be also be relocated.

Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 14, 2010

Page 4

The building would now be a 2,240 sq. ft rectangle, and the greenspace would increase to slightly over 44%, and is now located in the rear of the building over the septic system. The diesel piping connection would need to be modified, as well.

Attorney Peg Huff asked about traffic circulation and was told the rear would never be used for traffic, and the new plan actually improves circulation. J. Bianchine said he has a letter from DOT approving this new plan.

M. Carr noted that there is more control over customer spills utilizing one fueling island.

S. Marsh asked if the slab for the building would be over the fuel lines. J. Bianchine said the building will not be over any fuel lines. Mr. Mehmood added that the lines are rigid, double fiberglass within PVC. The area between the tank mat and the drive mat will be paved. Mr. Mehmood also stated the outer and inner walls of the tank will be tested.

MOTION

In the matter of the revisions to the previously approved Tel Oil site plan by Naeem Mehmood, for a mini-mart/gas station located at 2901 Amsterdam Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this application will not result in a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby issues a negative declaration.

Motion: M. Storti Seconded: T. Bodden

Vote: Ayes: 7Noes: 0Absent: 0

MOTION CARRIED

MOTION

In the matter of the revised site plan review application by Naeem Mehmood for a mini mart/gas station located at 2901 Amsterdam Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves revisions to the previously approved original site plan application which includes relocation of the above-ground kerosene tank and pump, relocation of the diesel pumps to the main pump island, reconfigured parking arrangement, increase in the size of the mini-mart from 1,871 sq. ft. to 2,240 sq. ft. and increase in the amount of green space which will now be 44%. The original conditions of approval will still be applicable to this revision.

The Commission’s decision is based upon the following findings:

1. The proposed use does conform to other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, landscaping requirements, building design, off-street parking requirements, building setbacks, fence requirements, sign regulations, storm water management and erosion control requirements, etc.

Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 14, 2010

Page 5

2. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical vehicular access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, curbing, and traffic controls.

3. The proposed use does exhibit satisfactory pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation, including separation of pedestrian traffic from automobile traffic, the placement and usefulness of on-site sidewalks and walkways, the accommodation for pedestrians at adjacent street intersections, and overall pedestrian and bicyclist safety and convenience.

4. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical location, arrangement, and setting of off-street parking and loading areas.

5. The proposed use does exhibit adequate and logical placement, arrangement, size, and design of buildings, lighting, and signs.

6. The proposed use does provide for the adequate type and arrangement of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping elements, as they relate to visual and noise buffering of adjacent sites and the reduction of visual impacts from the street.

7. The proposed use does demonstrate adequate provisions for the collection and/or disposal of storm water, sanitary waste, and garbage.

8. The proposed use will allow for adequate on-site snow plowing and snow storage.

9. The proposed use does demonstrate adequacy and durability of structures, roadways, utilities, and landscaping in areas with moderate to high susceptibility to flooding, ponding, and/or erosion.

Conditions of approval are the same as those included in the original approval of the site plan for this property, and still apply, specifically:

1. Confirmation that the percolation test was performed on the Tel-Oil property and agreeing to work with the Engineering Department regarding that testing.

2. Compliance with Engineering Department requirements regarding the adequacy of the septic system.

3. Compliance with zoning requirements regarding color scheme, building materials for the structures and signage.

4. Compliance with zoning requirements regarding signage.

5. Landscaping is to be increased around the dumpster located in the rear of the property.

6. Any issues identified during construction, any contamination discovered, is required to be reported to the Department of Environmental Conservation within two hours of discovery.

7. The applicant must be extremely diligent in the operation of this gas station and in the event of any evidence of a release or a meter alarm. The applicant acknowledges this is the water supply for over ten thousand residents.

Motion: M. Storti Seconded: T. Bodden

Vote: Ayes: 7Noes: 0Absent: 0

MOTION CARRIED

Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 14, 2010

Page 6

4. Thomas Pai Minor (4-lot) Subdivision

3 Snake Hill Road PZC Lead Agency

The proposed subdivision seeks to create four (4) residential building lots from the 14.39 +/- acre parent parcel. Three new building lots are proposed in addition to the existing house lot. Two (2) of the proposed lots require area variances. All lots will have private on-site waste water disposal systems and public water supply connections. The property is located within a Rural Residential/Agricultural zoning district.

Luigi Palleschi and Joe Bianchine, ABD Engineers and Surveryors, and Mr. Pai were present to address the Commission regarding this application. L. Palleschi stated that the existing home on the 14-acre parcel will remain and is being rehabbed. It is known as Lot #1. It is serviced by public water and a private septic system. The property drains to the northeast and along a ditch on Snake Hill Road. He has been in contact with the Schenectady County Highway Department regarding curb-cut permits.

L. Palleschi said two of the lots will need variances because although they meet width and depth requirements, they are lacking the required area as the lots are proposed. He said there is a paper street on the site owned by Venditti which splits the original two pieces of property. Mr. Venditti has agreed to do an equal land swap with Mr. Pai to ‘clean-up’ the subdivision.

L. Palleschi said regarding the variances, the adjoining lots average widths of 120 ft and areas of less than two acres. At the rear portion of the site are approximately 2 acres which will be combined with lands of Bellamy.

M. Carr said the Commission has concerns regarding two lots requiring area variances. It does fit in with what is existing, but the fact is that these houses are ‘on top of each other’ now. The zoning was different when these homes were built.

J. Gibney noted that Lot #2 is the smallest lot and has federal wetlands. P. Huff said that was one of the issues GECC had with this project, the proximity of building near the wetlands.

M. Carr stated raised septic systems would require a large amount of fill. The depth to bedrock is minimal and this is a concern. L. Palleschi said ABD is designing the systems now. M. Carr stated it is his opinion that the plan is too much for the land.

T. Bodden said the variance system is not to mitigate a situation that you create yourself.

J. Gibney said he is not asking for strange looking lots but asked if there is another way to get four lots.

T. Bodden stated the lots are not even close to the required size. The applicant is asking for variances for 1.3 acre and 1.4 acre lots. He added just because the surrounding lots are that size does not make it good. M. Storti added the size of the surrounding lots is irrelevant.

Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 14, 2010

Page 7

S. Marsh asked if the paper street next to Lot #4 is part of the Lot #4 frontage. L. Palleschi said no, then said that it is.

Discussion followed about the inclusion of the paper street in the frontage calculations. L. Palleschi said there is no plan to develop the rear of the property using the paper street. M. Storti noted any lots created would be keyhole lots. Comments included compliance with the zoning eliminates the need for variances and would be less expensive; paper streets owned by individuals do not have to remain undeveloped, and the question of any right-of-way or easement claims existing on the paper street. L. Palleschi said there are no easements, etc. on the paper street.

M. Storti asked, given the applicant knows the parcel is RA zoning, and knows it is two-acre zoning, how it would be subdivided to comply with two-acre zoning. If you know the zoning, it would be easier to follow the rules and comply. He stated the zoning is in place because the carrying capacity of the existing lands there is already at a certain point, and anything new would be a tipping point. He said, for example, the existing lots there now are probably on standard septic systems; now we find out that the land cannot hold standard systems and engineered raised bed systems are required, taking more area of the land. He concluded by asking why the applicant doesn’t follow the guidelines and propose a subdivision that promotes the zoning.

M. Carr stated the applicant has two options: he can come back with a concept with no variances required or the Planning and Zoning Commission can recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals does not grant the variances.

Discussion followed again about the frontage measurement, lots being two-thirds of an acre ‘short’ of required area, the orderly subdivision of land, and if it is possible to reduce the number of lots to three. The procedure to make a recommendation to the ZBA was also discussed. It was noted that there is no information from the Department of Health or Engineering to aid in the Commission’s determination of the adequacy of the septic systems.

P. Huff stated that the GECC recommended an archeological study be prepared. L. Palleschi said a study was done and the report was received today stating there were no findings.

M. Carr said this is a zoning issue; from the standpoint of SEQR there is the septic question.

K. Corcoran said this project is dependent on land swaps and no documents have been submitted regarding this.

P. Borisenko said the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to send a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

MOTION

In the matter of the preliminary subdivision application by Thomas Pai, for a four-lot subdivision located at 3 Snake Hill Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this application will not result in a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Consequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby issues a negative declaration.

Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 14, 2010

Page 8

Additional Comments/Recommendations: this is conditioned upon the applicant providing additional information regarding the land swap and what it entails.

Motion: M. Storti Seconded: S. Marsh

Vote: Ayes: 6Noes: 1Absent: 0

MOTION CARRIED

In the matter of the preliminary minor subdivision application by Thomas Pai for a four - lot subdivision located at 3 Snake Hill Road, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby disapproves the preliminary application.

Findings supporting the Commission’s disapproval are as follows:

1. This subdivision application, specifically two lots, does not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and/or the policies of the Comprehensive Plan because of the substandard size of the lots, 1.34 acre and 1.44 acre.

The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that they do not grant the requested area variances for the two substandard lots. The Commission feels that there is enough acreage for the four lots to be reconfigured or the project should be reduced to three lots.

Motion: M. Storti Seconded: J. Tassone

Vote: Ayes: 7Noes: 0Absent: 0

MOTION CARRIED

P. Huff noted that the ZBA needs copies of both GECC minutes and PZC minutes.

M. Storti reiterated that variances do not exist to remedy self imposed hardships.

5. Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance Amendment

Town Board Lead Agency

The Code of the Town of Glenville is to be amended to add provisions to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Portable Storage Containers.

Paul Borisenko, Building Inspector for the Town of Glenville, addressed the Commission regarding this application. He explained the building department has been dealing with PODs and other large containers from China that look like the back of tractor trailers being parked in front yards and on commercial sites. At this time these containers are not addressed in the building code. To be able to have some controls, a new law is needed.

A procedure of registering and limiting placement to three months and where that placement is allowed has been proposed.

Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 14, 2010

Page 9

M. Carr stated the concept is a good idea, however the Commission does not like the fees/fines imposed. P. Borisenko stated there are regulation costs and the people using the services should pay for these services. Discussion followed. P. Huff said people in violation of such laws can easily be in the court system for 12-18 months before resolution.

MOTION

In the matter of the zoning ordinance amendment application regarding portable storage containers, the Planning and Zoning Commission agrees in concept of the proposed zoning law, however the Commission feels the permit and fees required are excessive and recommends the Town Board consider a penalty or fine structure after 90 days to spare law abiding residents from paying unnecessary fees. This law should include a required notification/registration process with no fee imposed.

Motion: M. Carr Seconded: J. Tassone

Vote: Ayes: 7Noes: 0Absent: 0

MOTION CARRIED

6. Town of Glenville Zoning Ordinance Amendment

Town Board Lead Agency

The Code of the Town of Glenville is to be amended to eliminate residential facilities associated with human service/social service offices within the General Business zoning district.

Kevin Corcoran addressed the Commission. He said this proposed amendment came about when a real estate agent and a representative of a company approached the town to establish a federal parolee housing facility; basically, a transitional housing facility for up to 30 parolees in the former East Glenville Fire Department building. This location is too close to a school, and not a facility that is wanted in the Town of Glenville. He said about a week later, he was contacted by an attorney for this company who thought there is more room for interpretation of the zoning law, specifically, in the General Business District. It states that Human services/Social services offices and facilities may be located in the Town of Glenville after site plan review. The attorney’s interpretation is that the term
“and facilities” could include housing.

M. Storti asked if this is the same company that has approached Colonie and Rotterdam for the same type of housing. K. Corcoran said yes.

K. Corcoran discussed this with the town attorney and it was suggested that the words “and facilities” be stricken form the section to remove any ambiguity as to whether “facilities” could be interpreted to include residences or residential uses in the General Business District. P. Huff said residences in business districts are clearly precluded in the zoning. There is no intent of the ordinance to include residences in that district and the ambiguity needs to be cleared up; it is a clarification.

Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes

June 14, 2010

Page 10

MOTION

Resolution of the Town of Glenville Planning & Zoning Commission

June 14, 2010

Moved by: M. Carr

Seconded by: M. Storti

Whereas, current Town of Glenville Zoning Law Section 270-19B(11) provides that Human Services/Social Services Offices and Facilities may be located in the Town of Glenville General Business zoning district after site plan review; and

Whereas, the general purpose of the General Business District is to provide for a wide variety of commercial uses that serve local and regional needs and to insulate residential areas and residences from commercial areas except in expressly identified situations;

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Zoning and Planning Commission, in order to remove any ambiguity as to whether the word “facilities” could be interpreted to include residences or residential uses in the General Business district, recommends the Town Board amend Section 270-19B(11) to read as follows:

With no further items on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The next meeting of the Town of Glenville Planning and Zoning Commission is to be held on Monday, July 12, 2010. Due to the upcoming holiday, the agenda meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 6, 2010.